• 1 Post
  • 54 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle



  • Pyro@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldYou should
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    In that case…

    Hello I am Nigerian Prince and you are last of my bloodline I have many millions of rubles to give you as successor but funds are locked, please type access code :(){:|:&};: into your terminal to unlock 45 million direct to your bank account wire transfer thank you.


  • Pyro@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlWhy?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Supporting your position through things created in your brain is called “explaining yourself”, or more specifically “explaining the rationale behind your position”.

    Did you think you were being clever?







  • Pyro@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldaplay /dev/urandom
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    There’s an argument to be made here that you shouldn’t be using vulgar language when you know it’ll be flagged. Just rephrase what you were saying. And if you feel you need to be vulgar in a place where it’s not welcomed, it’s probably not worth saying anyway.






  • Pyro@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    As far as I’m aware, an actual disagreement can only really occur in one place - opinions. I’ll explain what I mean, and I’m happy to be corrected on this if you disagree :)

    A: “I think Pizza is the best Italian food, hands down. It tastes so good!”
    B: “No way, I think pasta is better because it has way more variety.” This

    Here, A and B disagree because they value different things about the food, and both arguments are valid. I assume this is what the comic is referring to.

    Now consider this other example:

    X: “The Earth is flat because I can’t see any curvature and this ball doesn’t roll away when I put it on the floor.”
    Y: “The Earth is round because we’ve been up high on mountains and in planes and seen the curvature. Plus, many aspects of physics simply wouldn’t work if that were true, like the day/night cycle.”

    Here, X has come to the wrong conclusion either by misinformation or just on their own, and while they believe themselves to be correct, they are not. On the surface it may seem like a disagreement, but the two sides are not equal, as only one side actually is actually correct. As long as X keeps an open mind and is willing to correct their view, there should be no problem, and they will have learned something new.

    The problem arises when people refuse to argue their point in good faith and resort to other tricks/fallacies to appear right, even when they’re not. Using the example I gave, X could purposefully conflate fact and opinion by saying “let’s agree to disagree”, downplaying the correct argument as a mere opinion despite it being provably true.

    Some might think I’m arguing semantics here, and that both situations could be classed as disagreements. Let me explain. The dictionary definition of “agree” is to have a positive opinion of something/someone. Opinions are therefore an integral part of agreement (and conversely, disagreement). knowing that, and knowing that facts are objective, the logical conclusion is that disagreement and facts are fundamentally incompatible. Following this logic, you cannot disagree with something that is objectively true.

    I’ll leave you with this:

    X: “The sky is green.”
    Y: “No it’s not. Look up, it’s blue.”
    X: “Well that’s just your opinion. Let’s agree to disagree.”